问题缘起：参阅 Erlang Question 邮件列表上的讨论（
http://groups.google.com/group/erlang-questions/browse_thread/thread/fed4e293a015ce8）。以下回复于该邮件列表。由于用的英文还是比较粗浅，我就不费神去翻译了。
I think flat module namespaces is a defect of erlang design.
For example, I write a foo.erl, And it works well. But maybe in a late erlang version (eg. R13B) also write such module named foo.erl. Then, you can see my application goes wrong.
How to avoid things like this? Let's see the following ways:
1. Adjust module searching paths, and let user path (which contains my foo.erl)
take precedence over erlang stdlib/otp path. But, this way can't always work well. If some other stdlib/otp modules use system foo.erl (not my foo.erl), Things goes wrong.
2. Write erlang modules always named with a prefix (a fake namespace. For example, projectname_foo.erl or organization_projectname_foo.erl). This way really can solve the problem. But, It seems ugly.
Is there a way let's user still can call foo:func (not call foo.erl provied by stdlib/otp, but my projectname_foo.erl)? I have a suggestion:
Can erlang provide a 'module name alias'? That is, I can rename a module's name temporarily in a module? For example:
-module(a_module_that_call_my_foo).
-alias(foo, organization_projectname_foo). %% alias
some_func_call_foo() ->
foo:func(). %% same as: organization_projectname_foo:func()
Currently I can do this by using the 'define' keyword. For example:
-module(a_module_that_call_my_foo).
-define(Foo, organization_projectname_foo). %% alias
some_func_call_foo() ->
?Foo:func().
It works well, but a bit ugly.
发表于 @ 2008年03月01日 13:20:00|评论(loading...)|编辑